Experienced players as patch-testers.

[cwlunatic 27]

I'am in no means an experienced player. I'am a level 50+ casual player that loves the game in the state it was when i first played it (november 17) and i still like it. But there are several people here, that have mastered the skills to be really good Jasons and or counselors. Some people here start the game and know after 20 minutes what has been patched and what is broken still or has been broken by the patch. These are important skills for a game and for ironing out bugs and glitches. Even though i know that it isn't easy to implement it - what do you think about the idea to help gunmedia/illfonic out and get the possibility to play a beta of the newest patched  version so you can communicate with illfonic to tell them what needs to be done.

In my opinion it would be a win-win situation for the players and the developers alike. 

 

[Truth 1,864]

That's been brought up before. They said it would basically require a 4th version of the build and wasn't worth the time/energy to create. I agree though. The more people they have testing the build, the more likely the bugs will be fixed before release. They just don't have enough people. I'd gladly do it for free if I could.

[Cokeyskunk 797]

1 minute ago, Truth said:

That's been brought up before. They said it would basically require a 4th version of the build and wasn't worth the time/energy to create. I agree though. The more people they have testing the build, the more likely the bugs will be fixed before release. They just don't have enough people. I'd gladly do it for free if I could.

Same here. I've beta tested before and would love to for this game and its patches, as well. (nudge, nudge, @ShiftySamurai. )

[TiffanyCox 136]

Seems like it would be a great idea, I doubt they would do it. I would love to give my honest opinion to the Devs 

[Dr. Lecter 533]

They don't need us to test their intended changes - they need to actually start wrapping their heads around all of the potential gameplay effects those changes could have, before we have to live with them for several miserable months at a time. Some of that might require more play testing because the consequences aren't part of the intended change (e.g., windows animations being a horrible idea re: smoothness of play, especially when combined with counselors and Jason interacting at a window; counselor 'bumping' completely goatfucking the health spraying of other counselors; emote wheel on controllers screwing up sweater use).

Most, though, just require them to either think harder or do a better job of weighing competing issues. Parts never needed to show up on the main map to avoid what they sought to fix (items "lost" to remote death/escape/trolling). As a bunch of us told them before they did it, removing friendly fire completely was unnecessary to fix the main issue (team killing, which usually occurred far away from Jason) and would be a huge buff to counselor group combat. What they needed to do was either leave friendly fire on within X distance of Jason (and obviously the game is constantly determining one's distance from him for various purposes like music, fear, and the recently added random screaming) or at least make it so that any counselor in Jason's grasp was vulnerable to damage.

[bewareofbears 4,246]

Allowing the community to help and provide valuable feedback? Considering who we're dealing with I can safely say it won't happen.

[VoorheesAJollyGoodFellow 1,976]

They either don't have the ability/funds to make a "playtest server" with an exclusive group for it, or they don't want to have one because they don't want to risk looking like they are making mistakes by rolling back changes they make. It looks like they want to keep whatever changes they make for better or worse because they don't want to look like they make mistakes.

[Alkavian 2,217]

6 hours ago, VoorheesAJollyGoodFellow said:

They either don't have the ability/funds to make a "playtest server" with an exclusive group for it, or they don't want to have one because they don't want to risk looking like they are making mistakes by rolling back changes they make. It looks like they want to keep whatever changes they make for better or worse because they don't want to look like they make mistakes.

Yeah, it was pitched to Gertz awhile back. I don't what they will do with it, but they are aware there are players who would help them if they asked for it at no charge.?

[WashingtonJones 1,061]

To be a tester you'd probably have to move to Kentucky. That would be your best start.

[VoorheesAJollyGoodFellow 1,976]

11 hours ago, WashingtonJones said:

To be a tester you'd probably have to move to Kentucky. That would be your best start.

I'm not far. I'm getting laid off too so it works for me!

[JPops 2,162]

This is a nice idea but it's a sticky situation for all involved. It's something that most likely would not happen and testing would stay internal as that is the best way to control everything. 

@VoorheesAJollyGoodFellow I have removed your tag. That belongs to a fake account that is banned. 

 

[Truth 1,864]

@JPops I don't know who was tagged, but couldn't the account be deleted to avoid this? It's not the first time I've seen you mention a fake account.

[JPops 2,162]

It could, but then that means someone can register the name again. I do not believe there is a block list for names. There might be, I'll check it out and see what we can do.